0
   

Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 04:28 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
I took this from a blog.

We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime"
by Maccabee
Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 03:50:24 PM PDT
I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.

I asked her why she is telling me this.

Her answer was really amazing.

Maccabee's diary :: ::
She started in the Marines and after 8 years her term was up. She had served on a smaller Marine carrier, and found out through a friend knew there was an opening for a junior grade LSO in a training position on a supercarrier. She used the reference and the information and applied for a transfer to the United States Navy. Since she had experience landing F-18Cs and Cobra Gunships, and an unblemished combat record, she was ratcheted into the job, successfully changing from the Marines to the Navy. Her role is still aligned with the Marines since she generally is assigned to liason with the Marine units deploying off her carrier group.

Like most Marines and former Marines, she is largely apolitical. The fact is, most Marines are trigger pullers and most trigger pullers could care less who the President is. They simply want to be the tip of the sword when it comes to defending the country. She voted once in her life and otherwise was always in some forward post on the water during election season.

Something is wrong with the Navy and the Marines in her view. Always ready to go in harms way, Marines rarely ever question unless it's a matter of tactics or honor. But something seems awry. Junior and senior officers are starting to grumble, roll their eyes in the hallways. The strain of deployments is beginning to hit every jot and tittle of the Marines and it's beginning to seep into the daily conversation of Marines and Naval officers in command decision.

"I know this will sound crazy coming from a Naval officer", she said. "But we're all just waiting for this administration to end. Things that happen at the senior officer level seem more and more to happen outside of the purview of XOs and other officers who typically have a say-so in daily combat and flight operations. Today, orders just come down from the mountaintop and there's no questioning. In fact, there is no discussing it. I have seen more than one senior commander disappear and then three weeks later we find out that he has been replaced. That's really weird. It's also really weird because everyone who has disappeared has questioned whether or not we should be staging a massive attack on Iran."

"We're not stupid. Most of the members of the fleet read well enough to know what is going on world-wise. We also realize that anyone who has any doubts is in danger of having a long military career yanked out from under them. Keep in mind that most of the people I serve with are happy to be a part of the global war on terror. It's just that the touch points are what we see since we are the ones out here who are supposedly implementing this grand strategy. But when you liason with administration officials who don't know that Iranians don't speak Arabic and have no idea what Iranians live like, then you start having second thoughts about whether these Administration officials are even competent."

I asked her about the attack, how limited and so forth.

"I don't think it's limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway."

I asked her why she was suddenly so cynical.

"I have become cynical only recently. I also don't believe anyone will be able to stop this. Bush has become something of an Emperor. He will give the command, and cruise missiles will fly and aircraft will fly and people will die, and yet few of us here are really able to cobble together a great explanation of why this is a good idea. Of course many of us can give you the 4H Club lecture on democracy in the Mid East. But if you asked any of the flight officers whether they have a clear idea of what the goal of this strike is, your answer would sound like something out of a think tank policy paper. But it's not like Kosovo or when we relieved the tsunami victims. There everyone could tell you in a sentence what we were here doing."

"That's what's missing. A real sense of purpose. What's missing is the answer to what the hell are we doing out here threatening this country with all this power? Last night in the galley, an ensign asked what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they can't build a nuke. I mean the table got EF Hutton quiet. Not so much because the man was asking a question that was off culture. But that he was asking a good question. In fact, the discussion actually followed afterwards topside where someone in our group had to smoke a cigarette. The discussion was intelligent but also in lowered voices. It's like we aren't allowed to ask the questions that we always ask before combat. It's almost as if the average seaman or soldier is doing all the policy work."

She had to hang up. She left by telling me that she believes the attack is a done deal. "It's only a matter of time before their orders come and they will be sent to station and told to go to Red Alert. She said they were already practicing traps, FARP and FAST." (Trapping is the act of catching the tension wires when landing on the carrier, FARP is Fleet Air Combat Maneuvering Readiness Program- practice dogfighting- and FAST is Fleet Air Superiority Training).

She seemed lost. The first time in my life I have ever heard her sound off rhythm, or unsure of why she is doing something. She knows that there is something rotten in the Naval Command and she, like many of her associates are just hoping that the election brings in someone new, some new situation, or something.

"Yes. We're gong to hit Iran, bigtime. Whatever political discussion that are going in is window dressing and perhaps even a red herring. I see what's going on below deck here in the hangars and weapons bays. And I have a sick feeling about how it's all going to turn out."


And since it came from a blog it MUST be true?
So if I find a blog that says we arent going to attack Iran,that MUST be true also?

So the two truths would cancel each other out, then what?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 04:34 pm
Who said it MUST be true? As you pointed out, bloggers are all over the map. I put it here to be remarked on and either refuted or accepted, not making any claims.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 05:19 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Who said it MUST be true? As you pointed out, bloggers are all over the map. I put it here to be remarked on and either refuted or accepted, not making any claims.


Well,if thats all you want, I will comment.

Whoever wrote this is lying, and here is why.

This sentence...
Quote:
She had served on a smaller Marine carrier, and found out through a friend knew there was an opening for a junior grade LSO in a training position on a supercarrier.


First of all,there is no such thing as a "marine carrier".
The USMC has no carriers of their own,they are all owned by the navy.
The navy has things called "helicopter carriers" or "amphibious assault ships".

These ships are used to transport Marines and their helicopters to an area,but all of the ships company are USN personnel.
The marines simply use them for seaborne taxi service to or from an area.
So,the "LSO" on board these carriers are USN people,NOT USMC.

Here is an example of the type of ship we are discussing.

http://www.navybuddies.com/lph/lph10.htm

These ships DO NOT have the ability to land and launch F-18C's,so there is no way that someone on board an amphibious assault ship could have gotten any experience landing them.
The F-18C is a very high capability fighter jet,not a helicopter.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18/

So,since the writer didnt know those simple details,yet claims to have gotten the info from a US navy officer,either the officer is lying or the writer is.

Also,this part here..,.
Quote:
She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.


Again,so what?
If you were to check with the military,you will find that this is normal.
The plans and tasking for an attack on Canada are also complete.
Its an ongoing thing,where these types of plans are always being upgraded,readied and then put away until and unless they are needed.

Your "source" seems to be interested in writing fiction,not in telling the truth.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 05:39 pm
marine carrier".

I served in the Navy, and I know you are essentially right. But, the blogger used that term, not necessarily the one he wrote about. It looks to be an error by a civilian. The rest is your opinion, theirs, and whomever else wishes to comment.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 06:11 pm
Edgar

See here http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=102853&highlight=
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 03:32 am
Quote:
The UN's chief nuclear weapons inspector yesterday warned against the use of force against Iran, in what UN officials said was an attempt to halt an "out of control" drift to war.

His outspoken remarks, which drew a parallel between Iran and Iraq, appeared to take aim at the US and Britain. They followed comments on Sunday night by the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, who said: "We have to prepare for the worst," adding "the worst is war".
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 05:08 am
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 08:05 am
But Why?
Nuclear Iran is not a threat

By William Pfaff

01/31/06 "Asian Age" -- -- Paris:
Why is all this pressure being mounted against Iran when both Washington and Jerusalem unofficially concede that there is nothing to be done to prevent Iran's government from continuing along its present course of nuclear development?

The contradictions in Western official and unofficial discourse about Iran and its nuclear ambitions are so blatant that one might suspect disinformation, but it probably is simply the cacophony of single-minded bureaucracies working at cross purposes, and the effect of the multiple lobbies involved and of US domestic political exploitation, and the paradox of the American policy itself, whose nonproliferation efforts actually provoke nuclear proliferation

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11731.htm
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 09:15 am
Quote:
Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 11:09 am
Yes, we have the military capacity to deter them from using them. I wonder though, do we have the capacity to stop them from threatening to use them?
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 12:09 pm
Oh the poor !!
There are many problems which warrant the attention of DECENT leaders

Let us stop talking about the American Dreams and start listening to the dreams of Americans.
Here is one who laments about the plight of the poor.

"Was Afghanistan an enemy of the United States?
Was Iraq an enemy of the United States?
Is Iran an enemy of the United States?
Is Syria an enemy of the United States?
Are China and/or North Korea enemies of the United States?
Are Cuba and/or Venezuela enemies of the United States?
The answer to all is a resounding and simple NO.
While some may have long lasting disagreements with the policies of the US government, none, absolutely none, has ever been foolish enough to consider unprovoked military aggression against the superpower bully. No leader anywhere in the world with an ounce of gray matter in his noggin would be crazy enough to attack a nuclear power that's quite willing to use its nuclear weapons (remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?), and have his country blown to smithereens.

Are your enemies those countries the administration named?
Baloney!
The poor suffering people in all those countries have no interest in anything other than to survive and live a decent life.
Those named enemies have more concern for lowly Americans than the elite who -- even if they can wrest oil from Iraq -- will fleece the public with high gasoline prices. Venezuela's oil company, Citgo, provides discounted fuel to poor people in the U.S. -- something American oil companies have never done. Cuba, another forged "enemy," reacted to the tragedy in New Orleans by generously offering slews of doctors to help alleviate the disastrous lack of assistance to New Orleaners. The Bush administration ignored the offer. Did any major insurance company or HMO volunteer doctors?

I think the real enemies of the citizens of these United States of America are the power elite and their allies -- the military-industrial (and congressional) complex, the oil industry, the medical establishment, the major media, and the Republican and Democratic parties, most especially the politicians on the national level in the executive and legislative branches. They constantly use and abuse the citizens of the country to maximize their profits! What do you think?

http://www.swans.com/library/art13/pgreen120.html
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 06:33 am
Fallon says war with Iran unlikely

Quote:
I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for," said Fallon during the Friday interview at Al Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar. "We should find ways through which we can bring countries to work together for the benefit of all .... It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions."


Let us hope Fallon's words prove to be true.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 12:28 pm
Secret US Air Force Team to Perfect Plan for Iran Strike
Why is it that these press reports don't seem to appear in the U.S. press?---BBB

Secret US Air Force Team to Perfect Plan for Iran Strike
By Sarah Baxter
The Sunday London Times UK
Sunday 23 September 2007

Washington - The United States Air Force has set up a highly confidential strategic planning group tasked with "fighting the next war" as tensions rise with Iran.

Project Checkmate, a successor to the group that planned the 1991 Gulf War's air campaign, was quietly reestablished at the Pentagon in June.

It reports directly to General Michael Moseley, the US Air Force chief, and consists of 20-30 top air force officers and defence and cyberspace experts with ready access to the White House, the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Detailed contingency planning for a possible attack on Iran has been carried out for more than two years by Centcom (US central command), according to defence sources.

Checkmate's job is to add a dash of brilliance to Air Force thinking by countering the military's tendency to "fight the last war" and by providing innovative strategies for warfighting and assessing future needs for air, space and cyberwarfare.

It is led by Brigadier-General Lawrence "Stutz" Stutzriem, who is considered one of the brightest air force generals. He is assisted by Dr Lani Kass, a former Israeli military officer and expert on cyberwarfare.

The failure of United Nations sanctions to curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions, which Tehran claims are peaceful, is giving rise to an intense debate about the likelihood of military strikes.

Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, said last week that it was "necessary to prepare for the worst ... and the worst is war." He later qualified his remarks, saying he wanted to avoid that outcome.

France has joined America in pushing for a tough third sanctions resolution against Iran at the UN security council but is meeting strong resistance from China and Russia. Britain has been doing its best to bridge the gap, but it is increasingly likely that new sanctions will be implemented by a US-led "coalition of the willing."

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who arrives in New York for the United Nations general assembly today, has been forced to abandon plans to visit ground zero, where the World Trade Center stood until the September 11 attacks of 2001. Politicians from President George W Bush to Senator Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2008 race for the White House, were outraged by the prospect of a visit to New York's most venerated site by a "state sponsor" of terrorism.

Bush still hopes to isolate Iran diplomatically, but believes the regime is moving steadily closer to obtaining nuclear weapons while the security council bickers.

The US president faces strong opposition to military action, however, within his own joint chiefs of staff. "None of them think it is a good idea, but they will do it if they are told to," said a senior defence source.

General John Abizaid, the former Centcom commander, said last week: "Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed Iran."

Critics fear Abizaid has lost sight of Iran's potential to arm militant groups such as Hezbollah with nuclear weapons. "You can deter Iran, but there is no strategy against nuclear terrorism," said the retired air force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney of the Iran policy committee.

"There is no question that we can take out Iran. The problem is the follow-on, the velvet revolution that needs to be created so the Iranian people know it's not aimed at them, but at the Iranian regime."

Checkmate's freethinking mission is "to provide planning inputs to warfighters that are strategically, operationally and tactically sound, logistically supportable and politically feasible". Its remit is not specific to one country, according to defence sources, but its forward planning is thought relevant to any future air war against Iranian nuclear and military sites. It is also looking at possible threats from China and North Korea.

Checkmate was formed in the 1970s to counter Soviet threats but fell into disuse in the 1980s. It was revived under Colonel John Warden and was responsible for drawing up plans for the crushing air blitz against Saddam Hussein at the opening of the first Gulf war.

Warden told The Sunday Times: "When Saddam invaded Kuwait, we had access to unlimited numbers of people with expertise, including all the intelligence agencies, and were able to be significantly more agile than Centcom."

He believes that Checkmate's role is to develop the necessary expertise so that "if somebody says Iran, it says: 'here is what you need to think about'. Here are the objectives, here are the risks, here is what it will cost, here are the numbers of planes we will lose, here is how the war is going to end and here is what the peace will look like."

Warden added: "The Centcoms of this world are executional - they don't have the staff, the expertise or the responsibility to do the thinking that is needed before a country makes the decision to go to war. War planning is not just about bombs, airplanes and sailing boats."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 12:49 pm
Cheney mulled Israeli strike on Iran: Newsweek
Newsweek reported the story. Maybe now the other Press will repeat it.---BBB

Cheney mulled Israeli strike on Iran
Newsweek
Sun Sep 23, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney had at one point considered asking Israel to launch limited missile strikes at an Iranian nuclear site to provoke a retaliation, Newsweek magazine reported on Sunday.

The news comes amid reports that Israel launched an air strike against Syria this month over a suspected nuclear site.

Citing two unidentified sources, Newsweek said former Cheney Middle East adviser David Wurmser told a small group several months ago that Cheney was considering asking Israel to strike the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz.

A military response by Iran could give Washington an excuse to then launch airstrikes of its own, Newsweek said.

Wurmser's wife, Meyrav Wurmser of the neoconservative Hudson Institute think tank, told Newsweek the claims were untrue.

Wurmser left Cheney's office last month, the magazine reported. The steady departure of neoconservative hawks from the administration has also helped tilt the balance against war, it said.

Washington has been pursuing diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to alter its nuclear program. It has refused to take military options off the table, even U.S. resources are taxed by having 169,000 troops in Iraq.

Although some intelligence sources say Iran is years away from nuclear capability, Israel believes that military action may be necessary as early as 2008, Newsweek said.

Israel has declined to comment on the reported air strike, while Syria has denied receiving North Korean nuclear aid and said it could retaliate for the September 6 violation of its territory.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 08:14 am
Why bomb Iran when you could just nuke Columbia U?
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 08:35 am
The worse is not over yet, for the war in Iraq is still costing America lives and money with every passing day.
And yet Americans are acting like a Third World country, helpless.
Their worst nightmare is not over yet.
Not only do they have to address the errors of the past, they need to prevent a reckless president from committing further idiocies, such as striking against Iran -- a scenario that would make anything that happened so far look like child's play.
Unfortunately, there is every indication that the American system, in its current makeup, cannot stop the president from dragging the country into further trouble.

Iraq was once ruled by a tyrant named Saddam Hussein, a man who was accused of killing, torturing and persecuting thousands.
Then President Bush told us that he would rid Iraq of the dictator and scrap Saddam's weapons of mass destruction -- weapons that Saddam never had.
Instead of building a safe, modern and democratic Iraq, Bush proceeded to spread chaos.
A million Iraqis have died as a result.
Four million more have been displaced.
Thousands of men and women have been tortured and raped in prisons, streets and homes.

Now the US president is getting ready to do the same in Iran, a country he claims has nuclear weapons.
The only way, in my opinion, to avoid another catastrophe is
to force Bush from office and try him for war crimes.
Can the Americans do it?

* The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/863/op23.htm
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 07:34 am
Another consequence of Bush's brilliant foreign policy; Ahmadinejad is now being seen as a hero by many Shiites and Sunnis for standing up to the West and Israel. Who is the one man who is capable of uniting Sunnis and Shiites into a common hatred for America?

George Bush.

Quote:
Ahmadinejad hailed in Middle East
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 08:37 am
"What would be the urgency of taking forceful action, given that the announced estimate is that Iran is still several years from acquiring a nuclear weapon?

"How malleable (and how well-defined) are Tehran's intentions, and what changes in Washington's policy might lead Tehran to abandon a weapons program? Even if Tehran's intentions do not change, what other options would impede or slow its nuclear program? If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, how would that change its behavior and affect U.S. interests? In particular, why would deterrence, which has kept nuclear peace with other adversaries, not work with Iran?

"The likely hardening, concealment and dispersal of Iran's nuclear facilities raise questions about the impact any military strike would have on the program. How much would Iran's nuclear efforts be set back, especially given that bombs are not very good at destroying knowledge and expertise? Would the Iranian response be appreciably different from that of Iraq after Israel bombed its nuclear reactor in 1981 (Iraq redoubled its nuclear efforts while turning to different methods for producing fissile material)?

"The most neglected questions concern other consequences of a U.S. strike or any other U.S.-Iranian combat, even if such combat did not lead to a prolonged occupation. How would Tehran respond to an act of war? What terrorism might it launch against the United States? How would it exploit U.S. vulnerabilities next door in Iraq, where it has barely begun to exploit the influence it has assiduously been cultivating? What other military action might it take, with the risk of a wider war in the Persian Gulf?

"Other effects concern Iranian politics. How much would the direct assertion of U.S. hostility strengthen Iranian hard-liners, whose policies are partly premised on such hostility? How much would it add to all Iranians' list of historical grievances against the United States and adversely affect relations with future governments?"


Reporters should be seeking out experts who actually understand the Middle East -- because the vast majority of them think that attacking Iran would be a huge mistake. Here's an annotated list of some excellent possible sources.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00203
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 07:42:40